On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Thanks. I modified the patch so that the max allowed peel iterations
> can be specified via a parameter. Testing on going. Ok for trunk ?
+DEFPARAM(PARAM_VECT_MAX_PEELING_FOR_ALIGNMENT,
+ "vect-max-peeling-for-alignment",
+
Thanks. I modified the patch so that the max allowed peel iterations
can be specified via a parameter. Testing on going. Ok for trunk ?
David
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang D
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Bi
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> >> char a[1];
> >>
> >> void foo(int n)
> >> {
> >> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
> >> int i = 0;
> >> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
> >> b[i] = 1;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main(int argn, char** argv)
> >> {
> >> foo(argn);
> >> }
> >
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 08:37:57AM -0700, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> >> char a[1];
>> >>
>> >> void foo(int n)
>> >> {
>> >> int* b = (int*)(a+n);
>> >> int i = 0;
>> >> for (; i < 1000; ++i)
>> >> b[i] = 1;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >>
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Bi
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard B
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>>> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang D
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
>>> wrote:
Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop
I incorporated all the comments and committed the change (also fixed a
test failure with --help=optimizers).
thanks,
David
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
>> Updated patch implementing the logic that more specif
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 12:07:37PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> > Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
> >
> > Ok for trunk?
>
> @@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
> {
>if (!optimize
>|
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
>> wrote:
>>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>>> but there is no simple way to turn
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
>
> Ok for trunk?
@@ -2305,8 +2305,8 @@ omp_max_vf (void)
{
if (!optimize
|| optimize_debug
- || (!flag_tree_vectorize
- && global_options_set.x_flag_t
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>>break;
>>
>> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
>> + if (!opts_set->x
Updated patch implementing the logic that more specific option wins.
Ok for trunk?
thanks,
David
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
> first version matches the requirement.
>
> thanks,
>
> David
>
>
>
Ok -- then my updated patch is wrong then. The implementation in the
first version matches the requirement.
thanks,
David
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
>>
On Fri, 13 Sep 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> @@ -1691,6 +1695,12 @@ common_handle_option (struct gcc_options
> opts->x_flag_ipa_reference = false;
>break;
>
> +case OPT_ftree_vectorize:
> + if (!opts_set->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize)
> + opts->x_flag_tree_loop_vectorize =
New patch attached.
1) the peeling part is removed
2) the new patch implements the last-one-wins logic. -ftree-vectorize
behaves like a true alias. -fno-tree-vectorize can override previous
-ftree-xxx-vectorize.
Ok for trunk after testing?
thanks,
David
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Xinlian
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li
> wrote:
>> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
>> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
>> logic for default O3 setting is
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote:
> Currently -ftree-vectorize turns on both loop and slp vectorizations,
> but there is no simple way to turn on loop vectorization alone. The
> logic for default O3 setting is also complicated.
>
> In this patch, two new options are introd
21 matches
Mail list logo
